THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte NATASHA V. RAIKHEL, WILLEM F. BROEKAERT,
NAM-HAI CHUA and ANIL KUSH
____________
Appeal No. 94-2232
Application 07/888,3671
____________
HEARING: December 4, 1996
____________
Before WILLIAM F. SMITH, GRON, and WALTZ, Administrative
Patent Judges.
GRON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 134
1. Introduction
This is an appeal from an examiner’s rejections of Claims
7-11, all claims pending in this application. Claims 7-11
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined
Application for patent filed May 26, 1992. According to applicants,1
this application is a divisional of Application 07/587,071, filed September
24, 1990, now U.S. Patent 5,187,262, patented February 16, 1993.
1
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007